JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Judge rules seizure of adult toys ‘unfair’

by

Rhondor Dowlat
236 days ago
20241121
High Court  Judge Avason  Quinlan-Williams

High Court Judge Avason Quinlan-Williams

Se­nior Re­porter

rhon­dor.dowlat@guardian.co.tt

A le­gal bat­tle over the seizure of adult sex toys from a lo­cal busi­ness has led to a rul­ing in favour of the claimant, Rogue Adult Toys and Lin­gerie.

The case, heard be­fore Madame Jus­tice Ava­son Quin­lan-Williams, in­volved the own­er of a small busi­ness that has op­er­at­ed suc­cess­ful­ly for two years. The case was filed against the Comp­trol­ler of Cus­toms and Ex­cise and the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al.

The busi­ness own­er, who im­ports and sells adult toys and lin­gerie, found her­self at odds with cus­toms au­thor­i­ties af­ter a ship­ment of adult toys ar­rived in Trinidad in Au­gust 2023.

In Ju­ly 2023, the claimant pur­chased a bulk or­der of adult toys to re­plen­ish her in­ven­to­ry and fill pre-or­ders. How­ev­er, up­on clear­ance of the goods at cus­toms in Au­gust, the claimant was no­ti­fied that 13 ar­ti­cles from her ship­ment were seized be­cause they were deemed “ob­scene and in­de­cent.” How­ev­er, up­on in­spec­tion of her goods, the claimant dis­cov­ered that 18 items, in­clud­ing high-val­ue toys, were miss­ing. The miss­ing items in­clud­ed vi­brat­ing dil­dos and mas­sagers, with a to­tal val­ue of over $2,500. De­spite this, the claimant was still re­quired to pay the full cus­toms du­ties for the en­tire ship­ment.

The claimant, who re­lies on her small busi­ness for in­come, is­sued a le­gal chal­lenge against the cus­toms de­ci­sion, ar­gu­ing that the seizure was il­le­gal, un­fair, and vi­o­lat­ed her con­sti­tu­tion­al rights. She claimed the de­ci­sion was ir­ra­tional and sub­ject­ing her busi­ness to un­equal treat­ment, giv­en that sim­i­lar items were be­ing sold by com­peti­tors in re­tail stores with­out is­sue.

The claimant sought var­i­ous forms of re­lief, in­clud­ing the re­turn of the seized items, de­c­la­ra­tions that her con­sti­tu­tion­al rights had been vi­o­lat­ed, and dam­ages for the breach.

In a rul­ing de­liv­ered on No­vem­ber 13, the court de­clared that the de­ci­sion to seize the goods was il­le­gal, ir­ra­tional, and un­fair. The court al­so found that the claimant’s rights to lib­er­ty, prop­er­ty, and equal­i­ty be­fore the law had been vi­o­lat­ed, award­ing her $30,000 in dam­ages.

The is­sue of costs has been ad­journed to De­cem­ber 13, when a fur­ther hear­ing will take place.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored